Samarvir Singh Vs UOI and Ors on 22 Oct 2020
Single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court held as follows:
From Para 35,
35. From the contents of the news items published in the Times of India on 30th and 31st May, 2008 in the context of which the above referred two first information reports have been lodged, it is apparent that there is nothing therein which would cause disaffection amongst the members of the police officers against the State Government established by law. The contention that the comments regarding the State Government having appointed a person with a criminal background like the second respondent would induce in the minds of the subordinate officers an impression that they should not obey him and thus, induce disloyalty, does not merit acceptance inasmuch as what is stated in the articles is only an expression of an opinion as regards the act of the Government in appointing the second respondent as Commissioner of Police. If the contention of the second respondent were to be accepted no adverse comment could be made as regards the appointment/promotion of any officer belonging to the police force, which cannot be the intention of the legislature while enacting the said provision. The test for the invoking the said provision would be whether the news items in question has the propensity of evoking amongst the members of the police force feelings of disaffection towards the Government established by law in India or the effect of inducing any member of the police force to withhold his service or to commit a breach of discipline. Besides, the news item has to be read from the stand point of a reasonable man. On a bare reading of the articles in question from the armchair of a reasonable person, the same can, in no manner, be said to have the effect of causing disaffection towards the Government nor can the same be said to have the likelihood of inducing any member of the police force to withhold the service or to commit a breach of discipline. A mere comment on the wisdom of the State Government in appointing the second respondent as Commissioner of Police in the context of his background, can in no manner induce a prudent member of the police force to withhold his service or commit a breach of discipline, nor can such comment have the effect of creating disaffection against the Government. The provisions of section 3 of the said Act would, therefore, not be attracted in the facts of the present cases.
And then in Para 36,
Bharat Desai Editor, Times of India and Anr Vs State of Gujarat on 18 Apr 2012
36. Another aspect of the matter is that a perusal of the allegations made in the first information reports shows that the contents of the sections invoked against the applicants have been mentioned therein so as to make out an offence under section 124A IPC and section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922. In this regard it may be apposite to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Vijaya Rao v. State of Rajasthan and another (supra) wherein it has been held that mere reference to the expressions mentioned in the provision would not disclose commission of an offence, when the ingredients constituting the offence in question are conspicuously lacking. In the facts of the present case, merely
because in the first information reports, it has been stated that the articles in question have been published with the intention to cause hatred against senior police officers of the State Government established by law and that the same have been published as an attempt to cause contempt and hatred against the State Government, the same would not fall within the ambit of section 124A IPC or section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922, when the ingredients for constitution of an offence under section 124A IPC and section 3 of the said Act are woefully lacking.
Supreme Court held that, just by using the words/expressions used in statutes/provisions does not disclose any offence, when the necessary ingredients constituting Section 420 are conspicuously lacking in the complaint.
From Para 5,
Vijaya Rao Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr on 29 Jul 2005
5. Except using the expressions fraudulent misappropriation and mala fide intention, the allegations in the complaint do not at all disclose as to how the appellant can be found guilty of the offence under Section 420 IPC. The ingredients constituting Section 420 are conspicuously lacking in the complaint. All the courts have failed to address themselves to the crucial question whether as far as the appellant is concerned any offence under Section 420 or for that matter any offence under Section 409 has been committed. Even going by the allegations in the complaint, allowing the criminal proceedings to go on against the appellant, would result in abuse of the process of the court. Hence, the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 10 of 2000 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar are quashed as against the appellant. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
Citations : [2006 CCR 2 122], [2006 SLT 3 405], [2005 SCC 7 69], [2005 SCC CRI 1600]
Others Sources :
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyaya ji has launched a lot of Public Interest Litigation and since the entire collection is not available in a single place, the following is a curated list for interested folks.
Initiated between 1986-1990
Initiated between 1991-1995
Initiated between 1996-2000
Initiated between 2001-2005
Initiated between 2006-2010
Initiated between 2011-2015
Initiated between 2016-2020
- Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 699/2016 : Attacking the pending criminal cases against the elected representatives of people (MPs and MLAs) in various Courts of India and expedite and disposed them on war-footing.
- Writ Petition (Civil) No. 329/2019 : The Section 31 of the CrPC, which provides that a convict can serve varying jail terms simultaneously for several offences, should not be made applicable to the convicts in heinous cases under special laws such as “the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), the Black Money and Imposition of Tax Act, and Fugitive Economic Offenders Act,.
- Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6259/2019 : Seeking Union Government to implement 24th recommendation of National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (Justice Venkatchaliah Commission) on Population Control; Two-child norm as a criteria for government jobs, aids and subsidies, and, may withdraw statutory rights viz. right to vote, right to contest, right to property, right to free shelter, right to free legal aid etc.;
Initiated between 2021-2025
- W.P.(C) No. 1334/2020: Regards to Election Reforms in India, i.e., Right to Reject all candidates in an election.
Initiated between 2021-2025
Vagua allegations don’t take fake cases far. Bombay HS quashed the fake case of 498A IPC against the relatively.
From Para 14,
14. Nowadays, it has become a tendency to make vague and omnibus allegations, against every member of the family of the husband, implicating everybody under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it has become necessary for the Courts to carefully scrutinize the allegations and to find out if the allegations made really constitute an offence and meet the requirements of the law at least prima facie.
Shabnam Sheikh Vs State of Maharashtra on 15 Oct 2020
Justice Shri Shiv Narayan Dhingra ji fined 25K INR to be paid to the Respondent, due to the delay tactics employed by Petitioner/her Advocate in dragging on the case…Rampyari and Ors Vs Ms Kamlesh on 09 Mar 2010
Since there was 1 judgment from a 3-judge bench of Supreme Court which said Preliminary Inquiry is mandatory u/s 340 CrPC, the 2-judge bench in this case, referred this point to a Larger bench.
From Para 14,
State of Punjab Vs Jasbir Singh on 26 Feb 2020
14. In any event, given that the decision of the three-Judge Bench in Sharad Pawar (supra) did not assign any reason as to why it was departing from the opinion expressed by a Coordinate Bench in Pritish (supra) regarding the necessity of a preliminary inquiry under Section 340 of the CrPC, as also the observations made by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra), we find it necessary that the present matter be placed before a larger Bench for its consideration, particularly to answer the following questions:
(i) Whether Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 mandates a preliminary inquiry and an opportunity of hearing to the would-be accused before a complaint is made under Section 195 of the Code by a Court?
(ii) What is the scope and ambit of such preliminary inquiry?
15. Accordingly, we direct the Registry to place the papers before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders.
Other Sources :
Index of Perjury case laws is here.
Citing Iqbal Marwah here and other landmark case laws, Supreme Court says,
From Para 10,
10. It is fairly well settled that before lodging of the complaint, it is necessary that the court must be satisfied that it was expedient in the interest of justice to lodge the complaint. It is not necessary that the court must use the actual words of Section 340 Cr.P.C.; but the court should record a finding indicating its satisfaction that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made. Observing that under Section 340 Cr.P.C., the prosecution is to be launched only if it is expedient in the interest of justice and not on mere allegations or to vindicate personal vendetta,
From Para 11,
11. Before proceeding to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C., the court must satisfy itself that “it is expedient in the interest of justice”. The language in Section 340 Cr.P.C. shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. It has to be seen in the facts and circumstances of the present case whether any prima facie case is made out for forgery or making a forged document warranting issuance of directions for lodging the complaint under Section 193, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.
From Para 19,
Sasikala Pushpa and Ors Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 07 May 2019
19. Even assuming that the version in the vakalatnama is wrong, mere incorrect statement in the vakalatnama would not amount to create a forged document and it cannot be the reason for exercising the jurisdiction under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for issuance of direction to lodge the criminal complaint against the appellants.
Citations : [2019 SCC 6 477], [2019 SCC CRI 2 826], [2019 SCC ONLINE SC 664], [AIR 2019 SC 2280], [2019 (2) Crimes 279], [2019 (7) Scale 559], [2019 CriLJ 2896], [2019 CrLJ 2896], [2019 (3) JLJR 122], [2019 (3) PLJR 122]
Other Sources :
Index of Perjury case laws is here.
Delhi High Court held this interesting point on discharge an accused.
CBI Vs Ram Swaroop Chandel and Ors on 30 Sep 2020
71. In view of above facts discussed, the settled law is that if the prosecution witnesses presumed to be true, without any cross examination, still conviction cannot be awarded to the accused, then deserves for discharge, as the case in hand is.
Other Sources :
Index of Discharge Judgments u/s 239 are here.
Supreme Court held as follows:
11) In our opinion, when a party relies upon any evidence, whether it is oral or documentary, in support of his case, the Court/Committee/Authority, as the case may be, and especially the original Court is under an obligation to apply its mind to the entire documentary evidence on which the party has placed reliance for proving his case and record its reasoned findings whether accepting the evidence or rejecting it. What is important is the consideration of entire evidence adduced by the parties in accordance with law while deciding the case.
Vilas Dinkar Bhat Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors 10 Aug 2018
Citations : [2018 SCC 9 89], [2018 SCC L&S 2 572], [2018 SCC ONLINE SC 882], [2018 AIR SC 3776]
Other Sources :